Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
-Presence of an echogenic mass
-Endometrial thickness
-Clinical suspicion for RPOC
Results showed that the presence of an echogenic mass distending the endometrial cavity was not a sensitive finding (29%) in diagnosis of RPOC but had a moderate PPV (80%).
Use a strict definition of an intrauterine mass
-Measurable in 2 planes
-Distinct from the adjacent endometrium
-Distending the endometrial cavity
-Seen in 28% of patients without RPOC
-Seen in 29% of patients with RPOC
Conclusions
-In those with type 0 vascularity, the likelihood of RPOC was less than 50%.
-Even if RPOC are present, the lack of visible vascularity suggests that the contents are predominantly devascularized tissue, it may pass spontaneously or with the help of uterotonics.
-Types 1, 2, and 3 vascularity still have a vascular connection to the uterus and are highly likely to represent RPOC.
-Type 3 vascularity has a large vascular communication with the uterus, which can even be mistaken for an AVM; in such a case, the obstetrician should be made aware of the vascular nature of the lesion and the theoretical risk of bleeding.
-Detection of an intrauterine mass has a moderate PPV for RPOC but is not very sensitive.